Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Parissi v. Telechron, Inc.
75 S. Ct. 577
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1955-04-11
- Topic
- general
holding that nonpayment of filing fees did not affect the validity of an appeal | holding that failure to timely pay filing fee did not vitiate validity of notice of appeal that was presented to clerk for filing within filing period but not filed | holding the failure to enclose a docketing fee did not render ineffective a petition for review | holding the inadvertent failure of the appellant to include the required filing fee did not vitiate the validity of the otherwise timely filed notice of appeal | holding that when the clerk of the district court received a notice of appeal within the thirty-day filing period, but did not "file" it within that period because the appellant failed to include the filing fee, the notice of appeal is nevertheless timely | paying filing fee for notice of appeal outside the statutory time frame was not fatal to appeal which was filed within proscribed time period | defining “file” as “[t]o place (a document) in a due manner among the records of a court” | The failure by the appellant to include the $5 fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1917 with notice of appeal submitted within the 30 days allowed by 28 U.S.C. § 2107 for such filing did not vitiate the appellant’s notice of appeal | notice of appeal is timely if received by court within prescribed period | late submission of filing fee not enough to defeat otherwise timely filing
Citator
- Cited by
- 65 opinions
The judgment is reversed. The petitioner’s notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals from a judgment of the District Court for the Northern District of New York, together with his appeal bond, was received at the office of the Clerk of the District Court within the 30 days prescribed by 28 U. S. C. § 2107 for filing a notice of appeal. In dispatching these papers the petitioner inadvertently failed to include the $5 fee required by 28 U. S. C. § 1917 to be paid “upon the filing” of a notice of appeal. The Clerk notified the petitioner of his omission, and declined to “file” the notice of appeal until he received the $5 fee three or four days later. By that time the 30-day period for appeal had expired. Upon petitioner’s motion the District Court made a nunc pro tunc order according the notice of appeal a filing date as of the date it was originally received by the Clerk.
*47 The Court of Appeals, without opinion, dismissed the appeal as untimely. We think that the Clerk's receipt of the notice of appeal within the 30-day period satisfied the requirements of § 2107, and that untimely payment of the § 1917 fee did not vitiate the validity of petitioner’s notice of appeal. Anything to the contrary in such cases as Mondakota Gas Co. v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 194 F. 2d 705 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1952), we disapprove. Our conclusion does not leave § 1917 without other sanctions.
Reversed.